PIPELINE POSITIONS TURN INTO POLITICAL POSTURING
Both B.C. and Alberta have dug heels into sticky mess of bitumen transport
When the B.C. New Democrats challenged the Alberta government move to restrict crude oil exports to this province, they had to fill a gap in the enabling legislation for the threat.
The B.C. case was based on a claim that this province was being punished — unfairly and unconstitutionally. But the text of Bill 12, enacted last week by the Alberta legislature, made no mention of B.C.
Moreover the wording of the Act insisted that the motivation was (as the title had it) “preserving Canada’s economic prosperity” and (as the preamble had it) “maximizing value of Alberta’s natural energy resources.”
Still, there were all those public pronouncements by Alberta Premier Rachel Notley and ministers in her NDP government, that left no doubt the target was B.C. and the motivation punitive.
Consequently, the B.C. statement of claim against Bill 12 is grounded as much in the rhetoric of Alberta politicians as the text of the Alberta legislation.
“The government of Alberta introduced and supported the Act because it asserts B.C. is responsible for “delays” to an expansion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline,” says the claim, filed this week in court in Alberta.
“Alberta seeks to utilize powers under the Act to punish B.C. and to exert pressure upon B.C.”
As evidence of intent to punish, about one-third of the statement of claim is devoted to a recounting of a trail of events that began on Jan. 30.
On that date, the B.C. NDP government announced it would block increased shipments of Alberta bitumen (heavy oil) pending public consultations and a scientific review.
Alberta responded with a boycott of B.C. wine. Premier John Horgan then shelved the threat to restrict bitumen in favour of asking the courts to rule on the extent of B.C.’s powers, if any, to regulate same.
Premier Notley initially praised the Horgan move as a step in the right direction (“stepping back from the brink and abiding by the law”) and suspended her wine boycott.
There matters stood until April 8, when Kinder Morgan, owner of the Trans Mountain Pipeline, put further work on the expansion project on hold. The company blamed “the uncertainty created by B.C.” and the Horgan government’s “opposition to the project.”
Whereupon Notley fired up a threat to (as she put it in an April 8 posting on social media) “impose serious economic consequences on British Columbia if its government continues on its present course.”
Next day, Alberta Energy Minister Margaret McCuaig- Boyd expanded on the threat on the floor of the Alberta legislature.
“We’re going to be introducing legislation shortly which will inflict pain on British Columbia,” she said in part. “They’ve made some decisions, and we’re going to inflict pain on those economic decisions so they understand what they’ve done.”
She and other Alberta ministers made similar statements when Bill 12 was introduced, debated and passed, leaving no doubt that “its purpose was to authorize the government of Alberta to reduce supplies of crude oil, natural gas and refined fuels to cause economic harm to British Columbians in order to punish and put pressure on B.C.”
Here’s the energy minister at the end of second reading debate: “Alberta needs more tools in our tool box to motivate B.C. to stop using unconstitutional tactics to delay the pipeline construction.”
Here’s Premier Notley just before the bill passed third reading: “Albertans, British Columbians and all Canadians should understand that if the path forward for the pipeline through B.C. is not settled soon, I am ready and prepared to turn off the taps.”
The B.C. NDP government does agree with the Alberta NDP government on one point — cutting off shipments of oil, natural gas and refined fuels would indeed serve to punish this province.
“A significant percentage of the gasoline and diesel con- sumed in British Columbia is imported from Alberta refineries, either by pipeline, train or tanker truck,” the B.C. statement of claim concedes. “A significant disruption in the supply of gasoline, diesel, and crude oil from Alberta would cause B.C. irreparable harm.
But all that is prelude to B.C.’s fundamental pushback against Bill 12, namely that it is unconstitutional for one province to try to punish another by restricting exports of its resources.
It’s a powerful argument, relying as it does on the words of Alberta politicians themselves about their intentions in crafting Bill 12. But by the same token, one could apply a similar test to the B.C. government’s reference case move to regulate increased shipments of bitumen to this province.
Premier Horgan says the reference case amounts to nothing more than asking the courts to clarify jurisdiction and vet some proposed changes in the provincial Environment Management Act.
But there’s ample indication of the New Democrats having darker designs on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.
From the NDP election platform: “The Kinder Morgan pipeline is not in B.C.’s interest ... We will use every tool in our tool box to stop the project from going ahead.”
The power-sharing agreement between the New Democrats and the B.C. Greens included a vow to: “Immediately employ every tool available to the new government to stop the expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline.”
Drawing on those and other public pronouncements by B.C. Greens and New Democrats, one could readily conclude that the B.C. reference case, no less than Alberta Bill 12, was also motivated by politics.
They’ve (B.C.) made some decisions, and we’re going to inflict pain on those economic decisions so they understand what they’ve done.
MARGARET MCCUAIG-BOYD, Alberta minister of energy